Who Am I?

Some have accused me of being 1 dan AGA. I won't deny it but I reserve the right to play like a 1 kyu :)

I'm a goofy person who likes serious go. I'm as interested in the process of improvement at go as I am in the game itself. I'm steady in my play and in my approach to study. I don't like taking unnecessary risks but I don't always accurately judge when risks are necessary. I don't like having weaknesses and strengths in my game so I try to even these out as they appear. I readily admit when I've reached the limit of my knowledge. I believe I can learn from stronger and weaker players. I believe that stronger players are not always right. I don't like making assertions I cannot back up. I don't trust absolute statements about go. I'm suspicious of comments like "the only move," though I sometimes agree with them. I don't trust go proverbs. I hate excuses, though I make them. I don't mind losing, but how I lose matters (i.e., there is information there). I believe that a significant barrier to improvement is fear of the unknown. Yet, I believe in playing moves I understand. I'm comfortable with paradoxes and contradictions. I don't mind disagreements. I don't feel it is my job to convince you I am right, though I will try to a point and then give up. I resent being bullied into agreement. I believe that abstract communication is at the core of what it means to be human. I believe go is just another form of abstract communication ("hand talk" is nearly perfect). I like statements (moves) with more than one meaning. I love it when the depth of statements (moves) is revealed slowly and even surpises the speaker (player). I think aji is cool. I like the model of aji as "potential good/bad luck." I like the mystery of life. It is disappointing to consider that we only have one. I like the mystery of go. It is comforting to know that I can play many thousands of games in my life.

Oh yeah, I can't spell! (Ok, I can spell some words.) I believe the English language is insufficiently logical. I believe it is okay not to be logical but, in so being, one ought not expect precision. (Translation: if the rules don't make sense, don't expect me to follow them!)

Where Am I?

I have a DGS account ( SnotNose) and a Yahoo address (snotnosego@yahoo.com). These are specifically set up for additional interaction with folks who contribute on SL. I'm happy to play slow games and/or teaching games on DGS (as a teacher or student) and review SGFs e-mailed to me. I might not check my DGS or Yahoo accounts regularly so you might find it better to open a discussion with me first on SL (on this page). That is, if you want to e-mail me or play on DGS, let me know here first and then I'll check my e-mail and DGS account.

Parody of Ratings Progress

Aug., 1998: I'm stuck at dumb. I don't know what to do. Some people say that you suck a lot before getting better. Maybe I'll get less dumb very soon!

Dec., 1998: Still dumb. I got okay for a bit and then fell back to dumb. Sigh :(

Feb., 1999: Wow, I'm getting it now. I just learned that ... now I'm okay. I don't suck so bad.

Mar., 1999: Man, I suck! I mean, I'm better than a year ago. I know because I looked at my game records. But I can't help but feel that I have so much to learn.

May., 1999: Depressed. Still okay. I have trouble with ... I lose a lot when... But then there are those nights where... and I really feel progress. But, overall, I'm still just okay.

Jun., 1999: I've come a long way since last month. I can't explain it. Maybe it was all the tea I've been drinking or the way I've changed the order of things I do in the shower. Anyway, I'm a solid okay now.

Aug., 1999: Progress has been steady. The lessons I had with this awsome player really helped. They were worth every penny. Man, I can't wait to be even half as awesome as that awesome player. I'm a only a decent player now. Not great, but decent. You know?

Aug., 2000: I haven't written in a while because so much was going on. I ... My wife ... Then the kids needed... Ugh! Who has time for go!? But I did play a bit online. I was away from the club for a few months and when I came back I was actually a bit better. All that online fighting helped maybe. I'm a solid decent player.

Jan., 2001: I'm good now. Oh yeah!

Mar., 2001: Damn this game. Good just doesn't seem good enough. I mean my friend, who only started last year is damn good (!!!). I used to give him ... stones and now I have to take black and put a hex on him to come within 10 points. I feel like a moron.

Jun., 2001: I'm damn good. Not expert of course. But damn good! I finally beat my friend and as white. He thought he was hot stuff but I'm back baby!!!

Jan., 2002: I finally broke through! I'm expert now. I went 4-0 at the last tournament. My last game was against this kick ass guy and I beat him because I pulled this crazy tesuji out in the endgame that was 6 points in sente. He had a 4 point lead (or so) before that. The look on his face... oh man.

Jan., 2003: Remember how I said I was expert? I wasn't totally right. It was more of a damn good streak. But now I really am expert. Solid expert. Not stellar.

Aug., 2003: Look out! I'm awesome!

Sept., 2003: A new guy came to the club. He moved out from ... He said he was awesome. So we played even. Oh, the humanity! He killed me. He's been kicking the stuffing out of me for a solid month now. I asked him how he knew he was awesome because he seemed more like crazy amazing to me. He said he had played at the ... Congress last month and was even with the other awesome players. So, I've got to conclude I'm not awesome after all. I'm so depressed. Damn him. I guess I might learn something from him but it sucks not being awesome. It has been so hard to get to awesome. Why is it so hard!?! I hate this game.

Oct., 2003: This game is so cool. I just met... and he showed me this ... and it really opened my eyes. I feel ... stones stronger just knowing about that! I'm looking forward to using it in the next tournament.

Comments Section

(most recent first)

November, 2003

Jared Beck: I love your idea that "Abstract communication is at the core of what it means to be human." My second-favorite thing about go, besides the great people I've met, is how abstract go is. Like a painting on the wall, everyone who engages go finds different meaning in it. Go is so abstract that it can be a metaphor for anything.

October, 2003

Naustin hey Snot! I like your page too. I'm not sure how a game as you described would work either but I definitely see possibility and am more than willing to try. Just keep in mind I'm not nearly as awesome as you. Concerning the differentiation of intersections, I do agree with you that corners and sides are different or rather have charachter before the game starts ( hence the validity of the basic strategem you pointed out with your story) and perhaps I understated that but it seems to me that as stones are placed the board changes. Imagine (not much of a stretch) the board is a graph of influence. After one move the board is universally influenced by black though that influence is graded ie it's less farther away. When there are complex positions on the board though the surface becomes extremely complicated because like in a life and death problem the influence of two points right next to eachother can be radically different as in chaos theory where some process like turbulence can take two points very close and those points can end up very close or very far but just alittle bit further another point could end up in exactly opposite relationship. I feel the board is differentiated in this sense increasingly and then as the game draws to a close decreasingly. That's why the "conversation" of the game is interestin because complexity increases to a very deep level quickly but at the end a meaningfull resolution is possible. I guess that the only argument against is that as a langauge it is a closed set that can only be used to discuss itself or it's implications. The metaphor rests on being able to define a system like math which is more complex as a language then looking at go as a special case.I look forward to discussing with you more!

Naustin I'm not sure skeptical is the right word. I think it would be fun and would like to try it. I just meant I didn't have a lot of specific ideas to start out with. I actually felt a really lose format might be nice. A friend and I did something simialar recently but confined it to game concepts. That is to say we both talked about our moves and why we were making them instead of trying to keep our strategy and tactics secret. In some ways the whole spiel I wrote about stones influencing or differentiating a surface could be seen as my speech before making my first move or at least part of it. The biggest problem I can see and your suggestion could help with this is that I for one can be very long winded especially when I get on topics that I like thinking about. Would the game be open to others to play in, or just view or niether? I agree with you about the effort to keep the issues go related. I noticed that myself some as my thoughts and posts maybe began to stray alittle. Maybe I will try creating an ongoing game and see what the options are. Philosopher's Stones